PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th January 2006
APPLICATION No:
05/50913/FUL
APPLICANT:
Abito
LOCATION:
Land At Clippers Quay Trafford Road Salford
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 290 residential units within a block ranging from 7 to
11 storeys with glazed roof canopy above, and 400 sq.m
floorspace for either retail shops or office accommodation and 87
parking spaces
WARD:
Ordsall
Members will recall that at the Planning and Transport Regulatory Panel Meeting of the 3 rd
November 2005 this application was deferred for the applicant to supply further information.
Members required further information in respect of:
o
o
o
o
Travel Plan;
Model showing the development in context;
More detail on sustainable construction and drainage;
Consideration of car parking scheme at Merchants Quay.
Members also required that once additional information had been submitted that residents be
consulted over these changes. The applicant has submitted additional information and objectors
and neighbours have been re-consulted.
Changes to the Scheme following the 3rd November 2005 Panel
Increased Parking
The applicant has increased the height of the building by 1.4m and has introduced a second level of
parking, on a mezzanine level, which has increased on site parking from 52 to 87 car parking
spaces. The height has increased from 40.5m to 41.9m. Five disabled spaces are proposed within
the 87 spaces. Cycle and motorcycle parking facilities are also proposed.
Travel Plan
The applicant has also submitted a revised travel plan which introduces measures to reduce car
use, maximise public transport use by the provision of information, pedestrian and cycle facilities.
The travel plan includes actions to monitor and encourage walking, cycling and public transport
use. The travel plan relates to both future employees of business and residents of the proposed
building.
1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th January 2006
Method Statement for Community Parking Scheme
The applicant has also submitted a method statement for an investigation into a community
parking scheme at Merchants Quay. The scheme seeks to investigate current parking problems at
Merchants Quay and to identify possible traffic management solutions. The method statement
explains that occupancy surveys and vehicle registration plate surveys would be would be
undertaken along with site surveys to assess whether a residents or community (residents and
business) parking scheme would be beneficial. Such a scheme would then have to undergo a public
consultation process to determine whether residents would be in favour of such a scheme.
Shadow Analysis for Increase in Height of 1.4 metres
The shadow analysis has been updated to reflect the increase in height of 1.4 metres. The results
show there is not a significant change in shadow upon properties of Merchants Quay from the
building as previously submitted to the Panel.
Model showing the development in context
The applicant has stated he is preparing a contextual model that shall be displayed at the meeting.
Detail on sustainable construction and drainage
“
The applicant has explained in his letter dated 21st November one of the issues raised at the
Committee was the potential for grey water recycling. We have considered this matter in some
depth. Any grey water recycling would require a tank together with a pumping and distribution
system to the ground floor commercial units. Given that the water use on the ground floor
commercial units is relatively low it has become clear from our considerations that the embodied
energy in digging out and creating the tank and distribution system and the ongoing energy of
pumping the grey water would outweigh any environmental benefits that the use of the grey water
”
could provide.
Objections received following further consultation
I have received 6 objections maintaining objections to the amended scheme. The objections
include a letter from the Merchants Quay Residents Association signed by 9 people. The issues
raised are:
o
o
o
o
o
Development will lead to displacement of car parking,
Other recent developments in the area have 100% car parking,
This development would set a precedent for inadequate parking,
Free travel would only be for one year,
If future residents of this scheme will walk to the tram stop they will walk just as far to park
their cars on Merchants Quay,
o Parking on Merchants Quay is already a problem,
o The proposed glass and steel building is out of context with the area,
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th January 2006
o The proposal will drive tourists away from Salford Quays,
o The development is out of context as it will provide transient low cost housing,
o The proposal will impinge upon future development of the waterside including house boats
and boats for business.
o Proposed development by Abito is for a predominantly high density residential which is
out of character with the surrounding area and is very close to, and directly overlooking
adjoining landowners land.
Planning Appraisal of Amendments to the Scheme
I am satisfied that the travel plan has been drawn up in accordance with current best practice and
would help to minimise car use. The applicants proposed funding of an investigation of the current
parking problems at the Merchants Quay area and the identification of possible Traffic
Management solutions together with the submitted method statement are acceptable and can be
controlled through a S106 Obligation. Whilst objectors would rather that one parking space per flat
or as provided within the development the proposed increase in car parking to 87 spaces is within
the Council’s maximum parking standards. I consider the combination of increased on site
parking, proximity of the site to Metrolink, one year free travel pass per flat, funding of a study of
residents parking on Merchants Quay and travel plan represent a significant improvement in the
scheme.
The revised shadow analysis shows the increase in height of 1.4m does not significantly impact
upon the amenity of properties of Merchants Quay above that discussed in the report below. The
applicant has also submitted a contextual drawing which supplements the existing drawings. As
such I find the impact of the height and mass of the building to be acceptable.
The applicant has confirmed photovoltaic cells will be introduced to the building which would be
used to provide energy from the sun for lighting of communal and balcony areas within the
development. The applicant has stated that grey water recycling would result in more energy being
used as a result of the pumping of water around the building and initial works to install the system.
I have requested the applicant provides his calculations for consideration of the Panel. I am
satisfied the photovoltaic cells would be in accordance with the general thrusts of policy EN17a.
I am satisfied that the additional information the developer has submitted addresses the issues
raised by the Panel on the 3rd November 2005 except for the recycling of water for which further
information is awaited. Subject to this information being acceptable I recommend the application
be approved subject to the following conditions at the end of this report and that the Strategic
Director of Customer and Support Services be given authority to enter into a legal agreement
under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the provision of
improved local open space/play equipment, one free one year travel pass for each flat and funding
of a community parking scheme for Merchants Quay up to the value of £20,000.
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th January 2006
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
AMENDMENT REPORT FOR PANEL AGENDA 3RD NOVEMBER 2005
Since writing my report I have amended condition 2, which relates to the use of the ground floor
units. I have also added a condition requiring a travel plan. Members are asked to note this change.
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to land on Clippers Quay on the site of the former Waterside Public House.
The site is bounded by the three storey Copthorne Hotel to the east, four storey office block
Optmium House to the west, former Cinema site to the south and Dock 6 to the north. The existing
dockside walkway separates the site from the Dock. On the other side of dock 6, 80 metres to the
north of this site, is the residential development of Merchants Quay, which consists of low-level
two and three storey housing.
The site covers an area of 0.3 hectares. The applicant proposes to erect an eleven storey building
fronting Dock 6 which would rake down to seven storeys fronting Clippers Quay. The footprint of
the building is roughly square in shape and would be built to the edge of the site boundary. The
building would comprise 282 studio apartments and 8 two-bedroom apartments at first floor level
and above. An internal courtyard area is proposed in the middle of the building with access to the
apartments from this courtyard. Fronting Clippers Quay at ground floor would be a commercial
unit 100sq.m. Access to the residential units and access to the parking area is also from Clippers
Quay. Fronting the dockside walkway there would be 300sq.m. of commercial floorspace at
ground floor level. The building would be set back from the dockside by 8.3 metres.
There would be one access point for residents on the south elevation. Waste and recycling facilities
would be at the side of the building on the west elevation. The car parking area is at ground floor
level with concierge, post room and an internal communal courtyard being contained in the centre
of the building on a raised podium, within an atrium. The building would be topped by a fabric roof
canopy supported by metal posts and cables, which would cover the internal courtyard.
The apartments are specifically designed to offer cheaper ‘city centre’ residential accommodation
to young professionals and they would be approximately 25% less expensive than equivalent one
bedroom apartments in the city centre. Each studio apartment would have a balcony and would
comprise one room separated into various parts by a freestanding central unit that houses all the
services. The elevations will comprise full height and width glazing behind the balconies.
The application has been submitted with a planning statement, design statement, shadow analysis
and wind conditions report. The planning statement seeks to justify the development with regard to
local and national planning policies. The shadow analysis shows the existing shadow situation
without the proposed building, shadow impacts with the building and has been updated to show the
impact of shadow if the building had been rotated through 180 degrees. The shadow report has
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th January 2006
been produced for December, September and June. The wind report states that wind conditions are
expected to be tolerable, or better, for leisure walking in the worst case wind scenario.
The applicant, Abito, has also submitted information relating to the Abito development at Gravel
Lane, which members will recall was approved by Panel in October 2004 (reference
04/48765/FUL).
SITE HISTORY
In 2003, planning permission was granted for the retention of a temporary car park and retention of
temporary 2.4 metre high fencing and gates. Permission was granted until December 2004.
(03/46752/FUL)
In 2004, planning permission was granted for the retention of a car park for a temporary period.
Permission was granted until 10th November 2005. (04/49198/FUL).
There is also a current application for the retention of a car park for a temporary period
(05/51415/FUL).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections recommends a contaminated land condition,
condition requiring a noise assessment and a condition limiting the fixed plant and machinery to
not exceed background noise levels at the nearest noise sensitive property. No comments were
received with regard to recycling facilities.
United Utilities – No comments received.
Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council – No comments received.
Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company – The site is a key gateway location. The submitted
schematic plan is welcomed. How does this development fit next to the Copthorne Hotel? East and
west elevations at ground floor level appear sterile due to the tall louvres, commercial activity at
these levels would be more desirable. Concern over the fin walls and would like to know the views
of the Councils architectural advisor on the scheme.
Environment Agency – No objection in principle but as a landfill site is identified within 250
metres of the site recommend a comprehensive landfill gas site investigation be carried out.
Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit – No known features of archaeological importance on the
site.
Greater Manchester Architectural Liaison Unit – Concern over the external parking area this
should have some form of boundary treatment. Recommend internal connection to recycling
facilities. Secure entry system is needed into the car park. Roller shutters and lighting should meet
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th January 2006
standards. Recommend the canopy be raised in height to allow driving rain in so that persons are
discouraged from loitering. Party boundaries should be at least 1.5m in height. Recommends
application be refused.
GMPTE – The site is well located in relation to public transport and the site benefits from its close
proximity to Exchange Quay Metrolink Eccles to Manchester Line. The site is also within walking
distance of the nearest bus stops on Trafford Road. Future residents, employees and visitors of the
proposed development would therefore have access to a genuine choice of travel mode which
should help to reduce the amount of car travel otherwise generated by this development. In an area
well served by public transport such as Salford Quays, the aspiration should be to have a reduced
amount of car parking in new developments in order to assist in the promotion of more sustainable
travel patterns, and to capitalise on the advantages of the public transport provision in the area. It is
therefore encouraging to note the low level of car parking provision accompanying this
application, this should also help reduce the amount of car travel that could otherwise be
associated with this development. It should therefore be ensured that car parking provision does
not increase with any future amended details or resubmission of this application. GMPTE also
suggest additional measures to be incorporated by the applicant to raise awareness of public
transport services in the area by:
o Provision of public transport information to occupants of the new development,
o Provision of a free one year travel pass for each residential unit,
o Development of a site intranet with public transport information,
o Personalised journey planning,
o Improving access to, or increasing capacity of, public transport facilities.
Peter Hunter – Confusion over the trees on the quayside. Satisfied with the design following
amended elevations.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
29 to 77 odd Merchants Quay
Optimum House, Clippers Quay
Regatta House, Clippers Quay
Clippers House, Clippers Quay
Copthorne Hotel, Clippers Quay
REPRESENTATIONS
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th January 2006
I have received fourteen letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity.
Objections have been received from residents of Merchants Quay, Legendary Property Company
who own the adjacent Clippers House Office block and also from the Merchants Quay Residents
Association. The following issues have been raised:o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Parking is insufficient and will result in on street parking especially in Merchants Quay
Appearance. The design is not appropriate.
Height is much taller than surrounding buildings
Anything above 5 storeys would be out of character
Impact of shadowing. Shadow will be cast
Privacy will be lost to houses on Merchants Quay
Whole area is overdeveloped
As the apartments are lower cost the quality of the tenants will be lower
The development will not be affordable
Impact may be better if the building were rotated through 180 degrees.
The number of units should be reduced
I have also received three letters of support, from the Manchester Ship Canal Company and the
Copthorne Hotel.
I have also received a letter of support from Hulley and Kirkwood Consulting Engineers. The letter
states the company wish to relocate to the proposed office space within this development. The
company are currently based in Castelfield.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY.
SD1 – The North West Metropolitan Area Regional Poles and Surrounding Areas
DP3 - Quality in New Development
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, DEV4 Design and Crime, H1
Housing Supply, H6 & H11 Open Space Provision.
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICIES
Site Specific: MX1/3 Development in Mixed Use Areas – Salford Quays
Other policies: DES1 Respecting Context, H1 Supply of Housing, H8 Open Space Provision
Associated with New Housing Development, DES2 Circulation and Movement, DES5 Tall
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th January 2006
Buildings, DES6 Waterside Development, A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in
New Developments, DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours, DES11 Design and Crime, DEV6
Incremental Development, EN17A Resource Conservation.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are whether the principle of the development
is acceptable, whether the whether the design of the building is of sufficiently high quality in this
important part of the city, impact of shadow and privacy, whether there is sufficient parking, open
space provision and whether the proposals are premature.
Principle of the Development
Policy H1 requires that an adequate supply of housing is brought forward with higher densities
being required at accessible locations such as this site. Policy H1 also requires development to
contribute toward a balanced mix of dwellings within the local area in terms of size, type, tenure
and affordability. Draft policy MX1 states that the wider area that includes this site will be
developed as vibrant mixed use areas with a broad range of uses and activities and that in
determining the appropriate mix of uses on individual sites regard will be had to a number of
factors. These factors include the positive impact that the proposed development could have on
the regeneration of the wider area; the use on adjoining sites and the extent to which the proposed
development would support the objective of maintaining a mix and balance of uses throughout the
mixed use area; the contribution that the proposed development would make towards securing
activity in the area throughout the day.
The proposal itself has a mix, albeit weighted toward studio flats, of size of unit. Within the
Salford Quays area there are no other developments either existing or proposed that offer this size
of accommodation. The intended retail/commercial units offer activity at ground floor level. The
proposed mix of uses is in accordance with policies H1 and MX1/3 and I consider the proposed
uses, subject to a restriction to retail uses and office use, would provide positive redevelopment of
this underused site.
Design
Policy DEV2 states that the City Council will not normally grant planning permission unless it is
satisfied with the quality of design and the visual appearance of the development. Draft policy
DES1 states that developments will be required to respond to their physical context, respect the
positive character of the local area and contribute towards local identity and distinctiveness via a
number of factors that include the scale and size of the building, its contribution in the street scene
and the quality of the proposed materials.
The nature of the building, one-bedroomed apartments that all have a balcony, has to a
considerable degree dictated what the elevations will look like. The architects for the scheme have
sought to achieve a high quality of design. I agree with the URC that the louvres at ground floor
will not present a welcoming pedestrian level and should be screened by soft landscaping which
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th January 2006
could be positioned adjacent to the louvres. Plants/shrubs would also help to filter pollution from
exhaust fumes and would still allow the car park to be naturally ventilated. I consider this can be
resolved through the imposition of a condition. Peter Hunter supports the scheme and as such I am
satisfied the appearance of the building will be of a sufficiently high standard of design, subject to
the louvres at ground floor level being screened by soft landscaping.
Shadowing and Privacy
Policy DEV1 requires that shadowing be taken into account and DES7 states development will not
be permitted where it would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or users
of other development.
The submitted shadow report does show shadowing, as a result of this development, to residential
properties on Merchants Quay between 10:00 and 15:00 in December. The shadow cast from this
development would move west to east gradually through the day. At 10:00 properties 55 to 73 odd
Merchants Quay would be in shadow, at 11:00 properties 39 to 67 odd Merchants Quay would be
in shadow, at 12:00 31 to 49 odd Merchants Quay would be in shadow, at 13:00 9 to 37 odd
Merchants Quay would be in shadow, 14:00 1 to 31 odd would be in shadow, at 15:00 number 1
Merchants Quay would be in shadow.
The shadowing scenario without the development produces a shadow to 75 and 77 Merchants
Quay at 10:00, this shadow is cast by the adjacent four storey Optimum House office block. In
September with the proposed building in the model, the report shows the building would not cast a
shadow onto Merchants Quay with the same result evident in June.
The submitted shadow report has been amended to show the impact of shadow should the building
have been rotated through 180 degrees, as suggested by an objector. The shadowing impact is no
different to houses on Merchants Quay that are adjacent to Dock 6.
Whilst there is undoubtedly shadow impact to houses on Merchants Quay in December there is no
impact at the equinox (March and September). As the negative impact is limited to winter, when
occupiers are less likely to be using outside space, I find the impact of shadow to be on balance
acceptable. In terms of privacy I consider the separation distance of 80 metres across Dock 6 to
properties on Merchants Quay to be acceptable with regards to privacy of occupiers of properties
on Merchants Quay.
Parking & Public Transport
I have received objection to the level of parking proposed from residents of Merchants Quay and
from the Merchants Quay residents association. Residents of Merchants Quay fear that occupiers
of this proposed development will park their cars on Merchants Quay, as happens when
Manchester United play at home. As stated above GMPTE consider the parking levels proposed to
be acceptable and would not like a higher level of parking. In terms of highway safety I have no
objections to the submitted scheme. Policy A10, in line with Government guidance, seeks
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th January 2006
maximum parking standards for all developments. Within the emerging planning framework there
is no policy requirement for a minimum level of parking.
Policy A10 requires that developers investigate measures to reduce the need for car parking
provision and states on street parking measures could be introduced to restrict displacement of car
parking. I am advised by my highway engineer that Merchants Quay is not appropriate for a
residents parking scheme. GMPTE explain there is a choice of travel options to and from this site I
consider the provision of a one year travel pass per residential unit to be essential to establishing
sustainable travel patterns. In line with the suggestion of GMPTE the developer has agreed to enter
into a legal agreement to provide free one year travel passes for the Metrolink and local buses.
Subject to such an agreement being reached I am satisfied with the proposed level of parking.
Design and Crime Issues
The architectural liaison unit has suggested the application should be refused. I do not agree that
the main canopy should be altered to allow the weather to penetrate otherwise useable incidental
amenity space. I agree that there should be defensible space around the external parking area but
this could be integrated into the soft landscaping scheme rather than by enclosing this area with
railings. I consider that the provision of a secure entry system can be included through the use of
condition. I consider subject to appropriate conditions to secure the above the application is in
accordance with policies DEV4 and DES11.
Sustainable Construction
Policy EN17a of the deposit draft UDP explains planning permission will not be granted if the
development will have an unacceptable impact on the conservation of non-renewable resources. In
response to this policy the applicant has confirmed the following measures will be included with
the building:
The concrete wall construction method provides a good thermal mass reducing energy use.
10
”
“
The building is constructed using improved U values over and above building control
levels.
The lighting of the apartments utilises up lighters enabling the use of low energy
luminaries, reducing energy use.
The residential apartments, offices and central amenity space are naturally ventilated
reducing energy use and emissions.
The orientation & thermal modelling of the building specifically utilises solar gain
reducing energy use and the need for mechanical heating and ventilation reducing
emissions. This also creates a healthy living & working environment.
The developer and building owner, Abito, will procure power via a Green Tariff Provider,
drawing on renewable energy sources.
All balcony and terrace lighting will be provided utilising power from Photo Voltaic Cells,
a renewable source of energy.
The apartments sanitary ware will include water flow control devices.
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th January 2006
All timber used in the building will be Forrest Stewardship Approved.
I consider the above measures are to be welcomed and will help to reduce the impact of the
building on non-renewable resources.
Prematurity
Draft policy DEV6 states that on sites within or immediately adjacent to an area identified for
major development, planning permission will not be granted for incremental development that
would unacceptably hamper or reduce the development options for that wider area. The policy
states that in some circumstances it may be appropriate for redevelopment to be resisted until a
masterplan has been produced for the wider site. There are currently no plans for a masterplan for
the Dock 6 area and this would potentially involve a lengthy process. As the Councils architectural
advisor considers the scheme to be acceptable I recommend this application be assessed on its
merits without the need for a masterplan first. The proposal maintains reasonable distances from
its neighbouring sites and I consider it would not necessarily hamper or reduce the development
options for the wider Dock 6 area.
Open Space Provision
Each apartment has a small amount of incidental amenity space via a balcony and access to the
internal courtyard area. In accordance with policies H6, H11 and H8 of the revised deposit draft
UDP and SPG7 open space and children’s play space can be accommodated off site through a
financial contribution. This application proposes 588 bedspaces, which equates to a commuted
sum value of £227,911.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
In accordance with the policies H6, H11, H8 and SPG7, the applicant has agreed to make a
financial contribution towards childrens play space, open space or local environmental
improvements. A total of £227,911 would be contributed in this regard. The applicant has agreed
to fund, albeit with a small contribution from future occupiers, a one year travel pass. The
applicant has also confirmed the use of some sustainable building techniques.
CONCLUSION
I consider that the main issues are whether the design of the proposed building is acceptable, the
impact of shadow and whether there is sufficient parking proposed. I am satisfied that the design is
acceptable and that the application would not hamper or reduce the development options for the
wider area. I am also satisfied that the impact of shadow is acceptable and that the level of on site
parking is acceptable subject to the above mentioned legal agreement. I am satisfied that the
application complies with policies of the development plan as a whole.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve subject to the following conditions and that the Strategic Director of Customer and
Support Services be given authority to enter into a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th January 2006
and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the provision of improved local open space/play
equipment and one free one year travel pass for each flat.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The use of the ground floor units, as annotated as commercial units on ground floor plan
(0-)A003/D, shall relate only to the use for retail uses and office uses within Class A1, A2, A3,
A4, A5 or B1; of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 2005.
3. Standard Condition M08 Site Investigation - new
4. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to
and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development is started. The scheme to be
submitted, shall include details of trees to be planted along the dockside walkway, details of
the tree pits which should not protrude above ground level, and shall include details of a soft
landscape screening to the louvres at ground floor level along the west and east elevations.
Such scheme shall also include full details of shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and
surface treatment. Once approved such scheme shall be carried out within twelve months; of
the commencement of development and thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the
Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be
replaced to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
5. Prior to the commencement of development the applicant shall submit for written approval an
assessment of noise likely to affect the application site. The assessment should follow PPG24
guidelines towards assessing the noise from the surrounding road and tram network including
Trafford Road, and any other local noise sources which are deemed significant on the site. The
assessment shall identify all noise attenuation measures which may be determined appropriate
to reduce the impact of noise on the residential properties on site and achieve the requirements
of BS8233 for internal noise levels. Consideration shall also be given to achieving adequate
rapid ventilation and Summer cooling whilst achieving the requirements of BS28233:1999. If
deemed necessary, alternative ventilation measures shall be identified and incorporated into
the noise assessment report. Once agreed, all identified noise control measures shall be
implemented prior to occupation and shall be thereafter retained.
6. Noise from fixed plant and machinery on the site (LAeq,t) shall not exceed the background
level (LA90,t) at the boundary of the nearest noise sensitive properties at any time.
7. The development permitted by this planning permission shall not be started by the undertaking
12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th January 2006
of a material operation as defined in Section 56(4)(a-d) of the Town and Country Planning Act,
1990 until a Planning Obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act,
1990 has been made and lodged with the Local Planning Authority, and the Local Planning
Authority has given its approval in writing. The planning obligation will provide that a
commuted sum as required by Policies H6 & H11 of the City of Salford Adopted UDP 1995,
H8 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan 2003 and SPG7 Provision of Open Space
and Recreation Space Associated with New Residential Development will be paid to the Local
Planning Authority for open space and recreation space purposes. The planning obligation will
also provide that each residential unit is supplied with a one year travel pass for buses and
Metrolink in accordance with policy A10 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan
2003. The planning obligation will also provide that a financial contribution of up to ｣20,000
will be paid to the Local Planning Authority for the funding of an investigation into a
community parking scheme on Merchants Quay.
8. No A3, A4 or A5 retail unit shall be brought into use unless and until a detailed scheme for the
extraction system which treats fumes and odours before their emission to the atmosphere so as
to render them innocuous has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The scheme shall detail how the extraction unit will be attenuated and mounted to
minimise the transmission of airbourne and structure bourne noise and vibration. The works
forming the approved scheme shall be completed entirely in accordance with the approved
scheme and thereafter the works forming the approved scheme shall at all times remain in
place.
9. The car parking parking, disabled parking spaces and cycle parking spaces shown on the
submitted plan(s) shall be made available at all times in connection with the use of the
premises, to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
10. Prior to the commencement of development the developer shall submit, for the approval of the
Local Planning Authority, a scheme to detail measures to ensure entrances are operated on a
secure entry system. Once approved the scheme shall be implemented prior to the occupation
of the residential units hereby approved in accordance with the approved scheme and the
scheme shall be thereafter maintained.
11. Prior to the first occupation of development the developer shall submit a scheme for the
written approval of the Local Planning Authority detailing the proposed artwork within atrium
and details of the lightbox to the south elevation. Once approved the scheme shall be carried
out within 12 months of the occupation of the development and thereafter shall be maintained.
12. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the walls
and roofs of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority.
13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th January 2006
13. The site shall be treated in accordance with a lighting scheme which shall be submitted to and
approved by the Local Planning Authority before development is started. The scheme to be
submitted, shall include details of lighting columns or bollards or lighting fixed to the building
and details of the luminance levels of such lighting. Once approved such scheme shall be
carried out prior to the first occupation of the development; and thereafter shall be maintained.
14. The submitted Travel Plan, dated 25th November 2005, shall be implemented in accordance
with the stated Objectives and Targets, Mode Choice Initiatvies, Process for Implementation,
Monitoring and Review Mechanisms and Marketing and Communication sections unless
otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
15. Prior to the commencement of development the developer shall submit a scheme for the
written approval of the Local Planning Authority to detail the incorporation of photovoltaic
system to the roofs of the developments hereby approved. Such photovoltaic system shall be
used to provide energy for the development hereby approved. Prior to the occupation of any
retail, business or residential unit the approved scheme shall be installed and shall thereafter be
retained and maintained.
Reasons:
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Reason: The site is in an area where industrial uses would not normally be permitted, regard
has been given to the particular nature of the proposed use in accordance with policy DEV 1 of
the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and MX1/3 Deposit Draft Unitary Development
Plan.
3. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
5. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
6. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
7. To ensure the residential development provides appropriate open space and recreation space
for future occupiers in accordance with policies H6 & H11 of the City of Salford Adopted UDP
1995 and H8 and provides a contribution towards the use of mutli modal travel to and from the
site in accordance with policy A10 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan 2003.
8. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th January 2006
9. To ensure that the development is accessible for people with disabilities in accordance with
policy DEV 5 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and policy A10 of the Salford
City Council Draft Deposit Unitary Development Plan.
10. Reason: To safeguard the security of the area in accordance with policy DEV4 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan and DES11 of the Revised Deposit Unitary Development
Plan.
11. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
12. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
13. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
14. In the interests of moving towards sustainability, reducing environmental pollution and
promoting energy conservation in accordance with Policy A1 of the Revised Replacement
Draft City of Salford Unitary Development Plan .
15. In order to provide recycling facilities in accordance with policy DEV1 and EN20 of the City
of Salford Unitary Development Plan and EN17a of the Salford City Council Deposit Draft
UDP.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Environment
Agency.
2. For further discussions regarding the requirements of the Contaminated Land Condition, the
applicant/developer is advised to contact the Pollution Control Section of the Environment
Directorate (Tel: (0161) 737 0551
3. The applicant is advised that the requirements of all the conditions precedent must be satisfied
prior to the commencement of the development. Failure to satisfy the conditions precedent
renders all development unauthorised and unlawful and appropriate action may be taken by the
Council.
4. Construction works should not take place outside the following hours: Monday to Friday
inclusive 08:00 to 18:00, Saturdays 08:00 to 13:00. Construction works should not be
undertaken on Sundays or Bank/Public Holidays. Access and egress for delivery vehicles
should be restricted to the working hours indicated above.
5. This approval shall relate to the application as supplemented by submitted letters from Drivers
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th January 2006
Jonas, on behalf of the applicant, dated 28 September 2005, 7th October 2005 and 19th
October 2005 and to the amended plans as received on the 21st November 2005 and 5th
December 2005.
APPLICATION No:
05/51225/FUL
APPLICANT:
JPS Real Estate Ltd
LOCATION:
70 Upper Park Road Salford M7 4JA
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a four storey building comprising six apartments
together with basement car parking, landscaping and
construction of new vehicular access
WARD:
Kersal
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to an existing detached two-storey dwelling set within large grounds
extending to 0.23 hectare in area. While the existing building is two-storey it does have
accommodation within the roof. Although the surrounding area is predominantly residential in
character there are non-residential uses to the immediate north of the site and further to the west.
To the south, opposite the site are detached houses and the two immediate neighbours to east and
west are also large detached properties. To the north of the rear of the site is a two/three-storey
1960s apartment buildings. There are other apartment buildings on Upper Park Road further to the
east and west. The site contains a number of mature trees on all four boundaries many of which to
the front boundary are protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO).
Of the 27 trees on the site it is proposed to remove four trees, three of which are protected by TPO
No. 4.
It is proposed to demolish the existing dwelling and erect a total of six apartments in a
predominantly three-storey building. In addition to the three main levels of accommodation there
would be nine car parking spaces at basement level and the top floor flats would have a
conservatory and terrace at roof level. This top level would be set back some 14m from the front
main wall of the proposed building.
A new access, located more centrally on the plot frontage, would be provided from Upper Park
Road.
16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th January 2006
The building would be of very contemporary design and would have a flat roof. The building has
been designed so as to present a narrow frontage to the street with the greater bulk of the building
being set back 8.5m from the front face of the building. The building is set the same distance back
from the road frontage (18m) as the existing dwelling. In terms of height the third floor roof would
be just 76cm higher than the height of the roof of the existing building. This is 54cm higher than
72 Upper Park Road and 1.4m lower than no.68. All of the apartments would be large
three-bedroomed dwellings.
The main material would be brick with sandstone features, black aluminium window frames, slate
sills and glazed balconies.
SITE HISTORY
Consent has already been granted to fell three trees that are protected by TPO and that are
numbered T3,T26 and T28 on the site layout plan. These trees were all in poor and /or unsafe
condition (04/48923/TPO)
CONSULTATIONS
Environment Agency – No objections in principle
Director of Environmental Services – No objections in principle but requests that conditions be
attached with regard to lighting and to noise from the lift.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
41 to 45, 68, 72 and 74 Upper Park Road
Flats A to K Penryn Court and flats 1 to 9 Haslam Court and 72 Singleton Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 7 letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:Loss of light
Overlooking and loss of privacy
Subsidence
Lack of parking and increase in highway danger
Out of character (and comparison with Penryn Court is not valid)
Problems with drainage
17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th January 2006
Noise and disturbance during construction
Refuse bins will cause nuisance
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP3 Quality in New Development
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: DEV10 Broughton Park Development Control Policy
Other policies: H1 – Meeting Housing Needs
DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
T13 – Car Parking
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: H1 – Provision of New Housing Development
DES1 – Respecting Context
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
ST11 Location of New Development
INSPECTOR’S REPORT
Draft Policy H1 - recommended a number of changes but the thrust of the policy remains largely
the same.
Draft Policy DES1– recommended only relatively minor amendments
Draft Policy DES11 - recommended no changes to this policy.
Draft Policy A10 - recommended only relatively minor amendments
ST11 – recommended re-wording to give priority to the re-use/conversion of existing buildings
where they are sound and worthy of reuse and/or of architectural or historic interest and their
re-use is effective.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
I consider the main issues in the determination of the application to be: whether the principle of the
use is acceptable; whether the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of
neighbouring residents; whether the design of the proposed building is acceptable; whether the
18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th January 2006
proposed level of car parking is acceptable; whether the proposal would be satisfactorily secure;
and whether the proposed development accords with the Adopted and Revised Deposit Draft
Replacement UDP. I shall deal with each in turn below.
Principle of Development
Policy ST11 advocates a sequential approach to the location of new development, which gives
priority to previously developed land ahead of greenfield land. In his report the Inspector has
recommended that the policy be amended to give priority to the re-use/conversion of existing
buildings where they are sound and worthy of reuse and/or of architectural or historic interest
ahead of other previously developed land.
Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 states that local planning authorities should avoid the inefficient
use of land and that this means that new development should normally be at a density of between
30 and 50 dwellings per hectare.
The site is currently occupied by a two-storey building that has a timber frame construction. The
applicant submitted a supporting statement that conversion and/or extension of this type of
building would be extremely difficult. I am satisfied with this justification for not reusing the
existing buildings and therefore I am of the opinion that the proposed development is in
accordance with the sequential approach to the location of new development outlined in Policy
ST11 and the Inspectors Report and that this does not conflict with adopted policy DEV10.
I do not have any objections to the demolition of the existing building as, although it does have a
very pleasing appearance and some charm, the site is not located within a Conservation Area and
the building itself, although it is on the local list of buildings of architectural, archaeological or
historic interest (category C – lowest category), does not have sufficient architectural merit nor
does it have any ‘special’ history that makes it worthy of listing or re-use.
The application site is located in a predominantly residential area and I am therefore of the opinion
that the use of the land for residential purposes would be compatible with surrounding land uses.
Adopted Policy H1 states that the Council will endeavour to ensure that the city’s housing stock is
able to meet the housing requirements of all groups within Salford by promoting a number of
measures, including the release of land to accommodate new house building.
Draft Policy H1 states that new housing development should contribute to the provision of a
balanced mix of dwellings within the local area.
The surrounding area comprises predominantly large detached dwellings and a few apartment
buildings. In his supporting statement the applicant has said that there is a particular demand for
large apartments in this part of the city and I see no reason to disagree with this claim. I am
therefore of the opinion that the proposed development would contribute to the provision of a mix
19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th January 2006
of dwelling types in the area, in accordance with policies H1. I therefore consider the principle of
the proposed development to be acceptable.
Amenity of neighbours and future residents
Adopted Policy DEV1 outlines a number of criteria to which regard should be had in the
determination of planning applications. Of most relevance to this application is the location of the
proposed development, including its relationship to existing and proposed land uses, the size and
density of the proposed development and the impact on neighbouring residents.
Draft Policy DES7 requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory
level of amenity. Development that would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the
occupiers or users of other developments will not normally be permitted.
All habitable room windows are set a minimum of 10m from every boundary. In addition the
boundaries of the site are characterised by significant mature tree and shrub planting that provide
significant screening. The habitable room window to window distances are in excess of 32m to the
rear and in excess of 40m the front of the site. Those windows in the proposed building that were
closer than 10m have been amended to be obscurely glazed. In addition the sides of the glazed
balconies have been raised in height to 1.7m and obscurely glazed in order to prevent overlooking
and loss of privacy from the balconies. I am satisfied that the proposed apartments would not
therefore result in any neighbouring properties experiencing a loss of privacy or a reduction in the
residential amenity they can reasonable expect to enjoy.
The building has been specifically designed so that it does have regard to its neighbours and the
rear portion of the building, at 14m in width, does sit comfortably within the 36m wide plot. I am
therefore of the opinion that the proposed apartment block would not form an overbearing
structure and therefore its introduction would not have an adverse impact upon the amount of light
that any neighbouring residents currently enjoy.
In the light of the above, I am satisfied that there would be no unacceptable detrimental impact on
the amenity of existing or future residents of the neighbouring dwellings and the proposed
apartments. I am therefore of the opinion that the application accords with Policy DES7.
Design
Adopted Policy DEV2 states that planning permission will not normally be granted unless the
Council is satisfied with the quality of the design and the appearance of the development.
Draft Policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical context and to respect the
character of the surrounding area. In assessing the extent to which proposals comply with this
policy, regard will be had to a number of factors, including the relationship to existing buildings
and the quality and appropriateness of proposed materials.
20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th January 2006
Regional policy DP3 states that new development must demonstrate good design quality and
respect for its setting.
Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 Housing is also relevant. It states that New housing development
of whatever scale should not be viewed in isolation. Considerations of design and layout must be
informed by the wider context, having regard not just to any immediate neighbouring buildings but
the townscape and landscape of the wider locality. It also states that local planning authorities
should reject poor design.
Planning Policy Statement 1 Delivering Sustainable Development states that Local planning
authorities should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes and they should
not stifle innovation, originality or initiative through unsubstantiated requirements to conform to
certain development forms or styles. It is, however, proper to seek to promote or reinforce local
distinctiveness particularly where this is supported by clear plan policies or supplementary
planning documents on design.
The surrounding area and indeed Upper Park Road itself does contain a number of different styles
of buildings. The wider area is characterised by a mix of both residential and non-residential
buildings and I am satisfied that there is no particular style or form of building that is required in
this particular location. That said, I am firmly of the opinion that the proposed building has been
designed to the highest standards and will raise the bar on the standard of new build development
in the area. I do agree, however, that the existing building is a particularly pleasant one, enhanced
by well designed and maintained gardens and mature tree and shrub planting. Whilst it is
unfortunate that this building will be demolished, I do not consider that there is the justification, in
planning
Terms to insist upon its retention and conversion.
The building is set back 18m from the highway and given the heights outlined earlier, I consider
that the proposed building would sit happily in the street scene and I am of the opinion that the
proposed building would not have an adverse impact upon the visual amenity of the area. It
respects the existing building line and it is well designed and incorporates materials of the highest
quality thereby ensuring that the proposed building makes a positive contribution to the character
of the area.
On the above basis, I am of the opinion that the application accords with adopted policy DEV2 and
draft policy DES1, regional policy DP3 and central government advice as contained in PPS1 and
PPG3.
Car Parking and access
Adopted Policy T13 states that the Council will ensure that adequate parking and servicing is
provided to meet the needs of new development, in accordance with the Council’s standards and
that car parks are designed to a high standard, with particular regard to access arrangements,
surface materials, boundary treatments and security measures.
21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th January 2006
Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists and
motorcyclists, in accordance with the Council’s maximum standards. It also states that the
maximum car parking standards should not be exceeded.
A total of nine car parking spaces would be provided within the basement to the building. In
addition, there would be storage areas for each apartment in the basement. The application site is
not well located in terms of public transport and the parking provision is therefore at the maximum
level recommended by central government of 150%. PPG3 states that Car parking standards that
result, on average, in development with more than 1.5 off-street car parking spaces per dwelling
are unlikely to reflect the Government's emphasis on securing sustainable residential
environments. I am therefore satisfied that the proposed level of car parking is acceptable and
accords with the Council’s maximum car parking standards.
Part of the proposal involves the relocation of the exiting vehicular access to the centre of the plot
frontage. The width of this access has been reduced during discussions with highway engineers
and arboriculturalists in order to achieve a satisfactory compromise that ensures the retention of
protected trees on the street frontage and an acceptable access into the proposed development. The
City Council’s highway engineer is of the opinion that the proposed car parking layout and the new
access is acceptable and therefore I do not have any concerns with the proposal on highway safety
grounds.
Trees
Policy EN7 encourages the conservation of trees and woodland through supporting the retention of
trees and aims to ensure that new tree planting is designed to contribute to landscape quality.
Policy EN10 of the Revised Replacement Plan states that development that would result in the
unacceptable loss of trees will not be permitted.
The adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance for trees states that “In the case of residential
buildings, a development in which a principle window (main window to a lounge, dining room or
main bedroom) is overshadowed by a tree, or where any part of a tree is sited within 3.6m of a
window will be resisted”.
A previous TPO application has dealt with the trees that are to be removed as a result of the
development. The Council’s arboricultural consultant did have a number of detailed concerns
regarding the access to the development and its effect on adjacent protected trees. As a result of
these concerns and in consultation with highway engineers the access has been narrowed.
In the arboricultural consultants opinion the erection of protective fencing would ensure that the
construction of the proposed apartments would not have a detrimental impact upon other trees. The
separation distances between the canopies of the trees and habitable room windows in the
22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th January 2006
proposed apartments complies with the guidance in the SPG and therefore the development would
not result in an unacceptable impact upon the trees due to future people pressure either.
A condition has been attached requiring the applicant to provide details of the proposed access and
egress route for construction traffic and any mitigation measures to ensure that the branches and
roots of protected trees are not damaged during the construction period.
Overall, I am therefore satisfied that the proposal accords with the policies highlighted above
regarding trees.
Other Issues
Any problems with subsidence and drainage would normally be addressed through the building
regulations and I do not consider these issues to be particularly relevant to the planning application
process. Noise and disturbance during construction is a matter regulated by the Director of
Environmental Services, I have however attached an informative relating to standard hours of
construction. A bin store area is to be provided adjacent to the site entrance and I do not consider
that this issue is one that warrants refusal or further amendment of the application.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
replacement trees would be planted to enhance the treescape
pre-application discussions highlighted the requirement for highest quality design
amended plans have addressed some of the neighbours concerns
CONCLUSION
I consider the principle of the use is acceptable and that as a result of amendments to the submitted
scheme the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring
residents. The design of the proposed building is of a high standard, retaining the vast majority of
trees on the site and providing an appropriate level of car parking. I consider that the proposed
development accords with the Adopted and Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP and
therefore recommend that permission be granted subject to the following conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. Noise (LAeq,t) from fixed plant and machinery (including the lift motors) shall not exceed the
background level (LA90,t) at any time as measured at the boundary of the nearest noise
sensitive properties.
3. The full height glazing to the lounges that face numbers 68 and 72 Upper Park Road and the
23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th January 2006
glazed side panels to all terraces shall remain obscure glazed at all times.
4. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to
and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development is started. Such scheme
shall include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface
treatment and shall be carried out within 12 months of the commencement of development and
thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or
shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Local
Planning Authority.
5. No development shall commence until a scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing
by the local planning authority detailing the route for access and egress during the construction
phase. Such scheme shall include the likely effect on trees during the construction phase and
the mitigation measures necessary to ensure that protected trees are not harmed. Development
shall only take place in accordance with the approved scheme.
6. No development shall be started until all the trees within (or overhanging) the site which are
the subject of a Tree Preservation Order, with the exception of those trees clearly shown to be
felled on the submitted plan, have been surrounded by substantial fences in accordance with
the Sarah Ryecroft Associates Plan numbered 537.3B. Such fences shall be erected in
accordance with the specification indicated on that plan and shall remain until all development
is completed and no work, including any form of drainage or storage of materials, earth or
topsoil shall take place within the perimeter of such fencing.
7. Prior to the commencement of development details of the bin store hereby approved shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The bin store shall be
constructed in accordance with those details and brought into use prior to the occupation of any
dwelling.
8. The existing access shall be made up in accordance with details to be submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to any dwelling being brought into
use.
Reasons:
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
3. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th January 2006
5. Standard Reason R009 Safeguard Existing Trees
6. Standard Reason R009 Safeguard Existing Trees
7. Standard Reason R009 Safeguard Existing Trees
8. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant is advised that the requirements of all the conditions precedent must be satisfied
prior to the commencement of the development. Failure to satisfy the conditions precedent
renders all development unauthorised and unlawful and appropriate action may be taken by the
Council.
2. For further discussions regarding the requirements of the Contaminated Land Condition, the
applicant/developer is advised to contact the Pollution Control Section of the Environment
Directorate (Tel: (0161) 737 0551
3. Construction works shall not be permitted outside the following hours:
Monday to Friday
08:00 to 18:00
Saturdays
08:00 to 13:00
Construction works shall not be permitted on Sundays or Bank or Public Holidays
Access and egress for delivery vehicles shall be restricted to the working hours indicated
above.
APPLICATION No:
05/51563/FUL
APPLICANT:
Beechfield/Folly Lane Tenants And Residents Association
LOCATION:
Former Allotment Site South Avenue Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Retention of modular building for use as community facilities and
retention of boundary fencing
WARD:
Swinton South
25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th January 2006
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The site is located at the end of South Avenue on the edge of a residential area and lies on a former
allotment site adjoining a field. The modular building is one storey in height and measures 10m in
length and 6.6m in width. The security fencing is gated and is 2 metres in height and projects 2
metres from the existing building around the perimeter.
The community uses proposed by the development include meeting rooms, multi functional space
that could be used for running events such as ‘coffee mornings’ and ‘drop-in’ sessions, or
providing changing room facilities for the nearby football field, or as a new venue for a polling
station. Some of the residents have also suggested organising activities for school children during
the holidays and a couple of evenings a week.
The applicant has advised that Councillors, New Prospect Housing Limited and Greater
Manchester Police will hold monthly surgeries in the building. It is further envisaged that the
building will act as a polling station for the area and replace the temporary provision sited at
Campbell Road on a yearly basis.
CONSULTATIONS
Strategic Director of Environmental Services – Had some initial concerns relating to the site due to
its proximity to known landfill sites (former Swinton Sewage Works). However, as the building is
suspended above floor level, there are no objections to the development.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 30th November 2005.
A press notice was published on 1st December 2005
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
27-39 South Avenue
22-32 South Avenue
8-10 The Square
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received a 7-name petition from local residents objecting to the retention of the
development in response to the planning application publicity. The following issues have been
raised:-
26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th January 2006
- Trouble with teenagers and children causing damage to fencing, starting fires in
adjacent fields etc.
- Perimeter fence is only 15 feet from front gate and drive (to no. 39 South Avenue) which
would exacerbate problems.
- Does not object to the community element but main objection relates to the position of the
building where there was previously an open aspect across the fields. All there is now is
an eyesore blocking the view.
- Devalues properties.
- The building has no electricity, is badly in need of décor and there are no funds to
implement any changes, which on the admission of two of the Committee, the
residents of this estate will not help in any way.
A letter of support has also been received from Councillor McIntyre on behalf of the Swinton
South Ward Councillors with the following comments:- Environmental Services carried out contamination tests on the land which confirmed that
there would be no environmental issues preventing the siting of the building.
- The Community Development Officer who had been leading the project advised that there
was no reason for planning permission.
- Local residents were invited to two public meetings to raise any concerns they might have
about the building. It is believed at the time that there was concern relating to its use as a
youth club which would attract unwanted behaviour. Nobody attended those meetings but
the members of the Association offered reassurance to some residents privately.
- The Tenants’ and Residents’ Association have been encouraged by the Community
Committee and Swinton Youth Partnership in their endeavours for the building. The
question of fencing was raised in terms of security for the building and its contents. Again,
the Community Development Officer advised that no planning permission would be
necessary.
- The need for planning permission, for both the building and fencing, was recognised after
having sought further advice. Would be happy, and was the intention, to work on the
aesthetics of both to help blend into their settings better than as you would see it presently.
- The area covered by Beechfield Folly Lane Tenants’ and Residents’ Association is very
poorly served for community space and yet holds a very large percentage of both elderly
and young people. Having access to space that this building will provide and so centrally
within the community will only contribute positively in maintaining and supporting
community cohesiveness.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Policy UR1 promotes Urban Renaissance.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th January 2006
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:DEV1 – Development Criteria
SC2 – Provision of Social and Community Facilities by Private and Voluntary
Agencies
DEV4 – Design and Crime
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:ST11 – Location of New Development
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
EHC1 – Provision and Improvement of Health and Community Facilities
DES11 – Design and Crime
INSPECTOR’S REPORT
ST11 - Some modifications recommended but thrust of the policy remains the
same.
DES1 – Slight modifications recommended but no alteration to the policy stance.
DES7 – No modifications recommended.
EHC1 – No modifications recommended.
DES11 – No modifications recommended.
BACKGROUND
A Supporting Statement was submitted as part of the application on behalf of the Beechfield Folly
Lane Tenants’ and Residents’ Association which details the background of the development.
The Beechfield Folly Lane Tenants’ and Residents’ Association was established in March 2002.
The committee currently meet on a bi-monthly basis to address issues concerning the local area.
Every two months the committee hold meetings in one of the committee members’ houses.
Following this, public meetings are held at which time the surrounding residents are invited to
attend to have their say on local issues. The public meetings are held at Monton Methodist Parish
Hall at a cost of £15 per night. A local mail shot is undertaken to encourage residents to get
involved.
As the committee has grown in size over the years, it has become difficult to meet in neighbouring
houses and venues are being used. The group have previously pursued the idea of having a
building (eg. local house) through New Prospect Housing, however with demand for housing
being high in the area this has never been possible.
28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th January 2006
In January/ February 2004 the Tenants’ and Residents’ Association was approached to ask if the
group was interested in a cabin that was being disposed of by Salford City Council (Highways).
The issue was taken to the committee for consideration and everyone was in favour of the idea of
having a local facility that could be used by the community.
Several members of the committee spoke with local residents about the idea and residents were
generally supportive and showed great interest in what activities/ events would be forthcoming.
Some concerns were raised regarding the cabin being used as a youth club.
In March 2004 contact was made with Environmental Services to seek permission to site the cabin
on the former South Avenue allotments. At the time, a soil contamination survey was being
undertaken to determine the suitability of the site for housing development. Environmental
Services undertook a site survey and advice was given to the group that the site was suitable to site
the cabin.
Over the next few months, quotes were obtained for transportation of the cabin to the site and
funding £1,045) was secured from Salford Council for Voluntary Services. The cabin was moved
onto the allotment site at South Avenue in July 2005.
Tarmac donated the materials (20 tonnes of hardcore) that were used for the foundations. Further
funding was secured from Swinton Community Committee (£3,500) to erect the perimeter fencing
and New Prospect and the Swinton Youth Partnership have contributed towards the cost of the
planning application.
The committee intend to submit a bid to the National Lottery to refurbish the cabin if planning
permission is secured.
The project is being supported by the Neighbourhood Management Team, New Prospect Housing,
GM Police, Jackson & Lloyd and local ward councillors.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the development is acceptable, in
principle, on the application site; the effect on the amenity of existing residents, whether the
proposed development is acceptable in terms of its use, layout, scale and the other standards of the
Council and whether the application accords with the relevant policies of the Unitary Development
Plan.
PRINCIPLE OF THE PROPOSAL
Policy ST11 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan and the Inspector’s recommendations
recognise that limited greenfield development will be appropriate in exceptional circumstances.
29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th January 2006
Policy SC2 of the adopted UDP supports the provision of social and community facilities by
private and voluntary agencies where these complement the services and facilities provided by the
City Council and do not conflict with the policies and proposals of the UDP. Policy EHC1 of the
Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan states that permission will be granted for community
uses, as these contribute to the quality of life of the City’s residents.
It is considered that there are special circumstances to allow the site to be developed as a
community use, given that the development would result in a beneficial impact on the community
it serves and would meet a local need.
The development lies in an area well served by local services and facilities and a choice of
transport modes. Accordingly, this does not represent a constraint upon the development of the
site.
Whilst the site is considered to be greenfield, it visually appears as overgrown and under-used land
lying within the urban area. The former allotments are no longer viable given that they have
become derelict for a number of years due to the fact that there is no demand in this particular area.
The development therefore accords with Policies ST11, SC2 and EHC1.
IMPACT ON AMENITY
Adopted Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when
dealing with applications for planning permission. This includes the location of the proposed
development and its relationship to existing land uses, the size and density of the proposed
development, the relationship to the road network, and the visual appearance of the development.
Policy DES7 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan states that all new development will
be required to provide potential users with a satisfactory level of amenity, in terms of space,
sunlight, daylight, privacy, aspect and layout. Development will not be permitted where it would
have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or users of other developments.
The development meets the Council’s normal standards with regard to light, privacy and
overlooking. The building is located 20m from the nearest residential property and is consequently
not overbearing or unduly dominant. South Avenue comprises properties that are two storeys in
height. The proposal is of a modest size and is therefore compatible with the surrounding area.
I am satisfied that the design of the development can be improved if a condition is attached to treat
and maintain the building and fence, and one which would seek a substantial new landscaping
scheme to be approved by the local planning authority before development commences. This
would significantly improve the visual appearance of the development and mitigate any adverse
impact on the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.
30
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th January 2006
The building is centrally located within the residential area that it serves. It is highly accessible for
people locally and will promote the use of forms of transport other than the private car. I am
satisfied that the use proposed at this site will contribute to maintaining and improving existing
community facilities. The proposal therefore complies with policies DEV1 and DES7.
DESIGN
Adopted Policy DEV2 states that the City Council will not normally grant planning permission
unless it is satisfied with the quality of design and the appearance of the development.
Policy DES1 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan states that development will be
required to respond to its physical context, respect the positive character of the local area in which
it is situated, and contribute towards local identity and distinctiveness.
The development will be subject to aesthetic improvements and a substantial new landscape
scheme which will be an integral feature of the proposal. It will aim to retain the current character
of the site and bring the qualities of the surroundings into the development. The retention of
existing mature trees and planting and the provision of additional landscaping on the application
site will help to soften the appearance of the development and help the building blend into its
natural surroundings. Sensitive landscaping will also help enhance the existing character of the site
and surroundings. The proposal is therefore in accordance with policies DEV2 and DES1.
CRIME
Adopted Policy DEV4 encourages greater consideration of crime prevention and personal and
property security in the design of new development. Draft Policy DES11 updates Policy DEV4 of
the Adopted UDP.
Screen planting will be designed to retain natural surveillance of the area and avoid opportunities
for crime. The building is currently vacant and susceptible to nuisance and criminal activities. The
use of the building would ensure that the site is better related to the surrounding area which would
discourage crime. In response to the objections received, I am satisfied that the security and safety
of existing residents will not be unduly affected. The application therefore accords with the above
policies.
CONCLUSION
Overall, I consider that the retention of the building and boundary fencing is supported by Council
policies given the positive implications of the development on the local community. The applicant
is willing to address the visual appearance of the development to mitigate any issues of impact on
the streetscene and the residential amenity currently enjoyed by neighbouring residents. In fact the
proposed development would improve the quality of life currently enjoyed by residents in the
surrounding area, as it would contribute to the regeneration of the area by improving the
31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th January 2006
environment and eliminating vandalism and other criminal activity. The proposal is therefore in
accordance with policies DEV1, SE2 and DEV4 the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
and policies ST11, DES1, DES7, EHC1 and DES11 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement
Plan. I therefore recommend the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to the
Local Planning Authority within two months of the date of this permission. The scheme, as
may be approved, shall be implemented in the first available planting season. Such scheme
shall include trees and shrubs to be planted and shall be maintained thereafter to the
satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of
planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
2. The modular building and boundary fencing hereby approved shall be treated in colour(s), the
details of which shall have previously been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local
Planning Authority within two months of the date of the pemission.
(Reasons)
1. To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan.
2. To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
05/51628/FUL
APPLICANT:
Pendleton College
LOCATION:
Pendleton College Dronfield Road Salford M6 7FR
32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th January 2006
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a four storey performing arts building to include
theatre, rehearsal studios, refectory, learning resource centre and
teaching classrooms together with associated car parking on
existing playing fields
WARD:
Claremont
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This site is Pendleton College on Dronfield Road. The college is bounded by Dronfield Road to the
north and to the east by three storey residential properties of Carlton Road. To the south and west
of the college are the shared playing fields of the college and Buille Hill High School. Buille Hill
High School is to the south of the College. The college has a mixture of three, two and single
storey buildings. There are also a number of temporary classrooms on the college site.
Planning permission is sought for a part four, part three, part two and part single storey building
which would contain a performing arts building with the following functions enclosed, theatre,
studios, refectory, learning resource centre and classrooms. The performing arts building would be
sited on land where temporary classrooms are currently sited at the rear of the college building
between the college and the shared playing fields. The single and two storey element of the
proposed building would be 16 metres from the rear of houses on Carlton Road, the three storey
element would be 25 metres from houses on Carlton Road whilst the four storey element would be
46 metres away. The footprint of the extension would have a crucifix shape. The proposed
materials are a mixture of brickwork, render, timber and metal cladding.
The proposal involves the demolition of the existing temporary classrooms on the site. Members
may be aware that planning permission (05/51511/FUL) was recently approved for the siting of 2
two storey temporary classroom blocks on land fronting Dronfield Road. The temporary
classrooms would be used until the extension subject of this application is ready for use.
Permission was also granted for the fencing of the temporary classroom area (05/51512/FUL).
Conditions were attached to these approvals to limit the temporary classrooms and railings to a
period of 24 months and conditions required drainage details to be submitted and agreed. Members
should also be aware that the requirements of Sport England were satisfied in relation to the above
two applications for temporary classrooms and fencing.
This current application proposes car parking on the position of the approved temporary
classrooms adjacent to Dronfield Road. The applicant has stated that the contractors compound
and contractors entrance to the site would be to the west of the temporary classrooms opposite 54,
56 & 58 Dronfield Road.
33
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th January 2006
The application has been submitted with a transport assessment, noise assessment and design
statement. The transport assessment concludes that the site is accessible to travel by public
transport, by foot and bicycle, that junctions would not require improving as a result of the
development given the increase of 16 car parking spaces. Traffic surveys were taken in the
morning and evening peak hours. A draft travel plan is provided.
The noise assessment concludes that noise breakout from the extension should be 5dB(A) below
the lowest recorded background noise level of houses on Dronfield Road, Carlton Road and houses
to the south and west of the college.
The design statement sets out the design philosophy for the extension. The statement explains that
a proposed four storey extension along Dronfield Road was the colleges preferred option but was
discounted following pre-application discussion. The statement explains the proposed extension
has been stepped down from four storeys to two storeys at its closest point to Carlton Road in order
to respect amenities of occupiers of those properties.
SITE HISTORY
In 2005, planning permission was granted for the siting of two two-storey temporary classrooms
(05/51511/FUL).
In 2005, planning permission was approved for the erection of 2.4m high vertical bar railings
(05/51512/FUL)
In 2005, planning permission was refused for the erection of 2.4m high vertical bar railing fence
(05/50836/FUL)
In 2005, planning permission was approved for the retention of four portable classrooms
(04/49749/FUL)
In 2003, planning permission was approved for the retention of partial cladding to front elevation
(03/46733/FUL)
In 2002, permission was approved for alterations to front entrance and construction of canopy and
disabled access ramp (01/43421/FUL)
In 2001, Prior Notification for the installation of two air conditioning units to rear or existing
equipment cabin was approved (01/42425/TEL28)
In 1996, planning permission was approved for modification to main entrance door to college to
include a canopy (96/35206/FUL)
In 1994, planning permission was approved for Construction of roof over existing lightwell to
form additional classrooms below (05/51628/FUL).
CONSULTATIONS
34
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th January 2006
Environment Agency – No Objections
Director of Environmental Services – No objections but recommends a condition requiring a
ground condition report, a condition limiting servicing and a condition requiring that noise
breakout is limited.
Sport England – No objection.
GM Police Architectural Liaison Unit – Detailed advice provided including height of railings and
lighting levels.
Director of Children’s Services – No comments received
GM Archaeological Unit – No comments received
PUBLICITY
Site notices have been displayed and a press notice was published on 10th November 2005.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
3 – 15 Manor Road
56 Lullington Road
43, 48 & 50 Longmead Road
2 - 64 Dronfield Road
1 – 19 Dronfield Road
1 – 35 Carlton Road
18 – 24 Chasley Road
1 – 9 Westfield
2 Manor Road
Buille Hill High School
51, 53 & 54 Trenant Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received five letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. One of
the letters has been submitted with a petition of 16 signatures opposing the application. The
following issues have been raised:Object to building on playing fields
The college extension and new school at Buille Hill High School will lead to traffic safety
problems
Increased traffic along Dronfield Road and neighbouring roads
Not enough car parking proposed
Increase in litter
Increase in numbers of students
Increase in noise
Inadequacy of car parking on site
35
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th January 2006
Inadequacy of Council to deal with increased traffic
Increase in on street parking during the college day and by third parties using college
facilities
Use of college facilities in evenings and at weekends
Contractors vehicular entrance from Dronfield Road
Object to car parking opposite houses on Dronfield Road
Contractors compound area and access should be adjacent to Chasely Road, next to where
the Buille Hill High School construction would take place
Proposal radically change outlook for residents on Dronfield Road
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP3 – Quality in New Development
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: SC4 Improvement/Replacement of Schools
R1 Protection of Recreation Land and Facilities
DEV1 Development Criteria
DEV2 Good Design
DEV4 Design and Crime
EN20 Pollution Control
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies:
EHC1 Provision and Improvement of Education, Heath and Community
Facilities
DES1 Respecting Context
DES2 Circulation and Movement
DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES11 Design and Crime
A1 Transport Assessments and Travel Plans
A2 Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled
EN14 Pollution Control
R1 Protection of Recreation Land and Facilities
EN17a Resource Conservation
INSPECTORS REPORT
EHC0 – Recommends modifications to the reasoned justification
DES1 – Minor modifications general thrust remains the same
36
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th January 2006
DES2 – Recommends modifications to the reasoned justification
DES7 – No modifications
DES11 – No modifications
A1 – Minor modifications general thrust remains the same
A2 – No modifications
EN14 – No modifications
R1 – Minor Modifications
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the use and redevelopment of part of the
site as improved education facilities, the increase in traffic, access and servicing, design and crime
issues, impact upon amenity of neighbouring residential properties and the appearance of the
college.
Policy SC4 explains the Council will endeavour to provide improved and replacement education
facilities subject to availability of adequate resources. The policy seeks to ensure that the condition
of education buildings and infrastructure is compatible with current requirements. Policy ECH1
also promotes the improvement of education facilities where sports provision is provided on site
and residential amenity and environmental quality is not harmed as a result. This policy also
requires that access be available from a wide range of transport modes. Policies R1 state that
development of informal or formal recreation would not be allowed unless the development is
ancillary to the main purpose of the site, adequate replacement recreation provision of equivalent
or better accessibility, community benefit and management results and the site is surplus to
recreation requirements.
Policies DEV4 and DEV11 require development be designed to minimise the potential for
criminal activity. DEV1 lists a number of criteria that any development must have regard to.
Included are the size and density of buildings, neighbouring amenity, access arrangements,
parking and landscaping. DES1 explains the Council will seek to ensure development respects the
character of the local area with respect to buildings, landscaping and to have a general high
standard of design. Policy A1 requires that a travel plan be submitted where appropriate to ensure
access by other means than the private car whilst Policy DEV5 allows this to be controlled through
the imposition of conditions. Policy DES2 requires design and layout of development is such that
conflicts between users of the highway are minimised. Policy A2 explains development should
provide adequate levels of access for the disabled, pedestrians and cyclists should be maintained,
whilst policy A10 seeks maximum parking standards for developments. Policies EN20 and EN14
seek to minimize the impact of pollution including noise and light pollution upon occupiers of
nearby properties. Policies EN20 and EN13 seek to ensure the remediation of contaminated land.
Principle of Development
37
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th January 2006
The proposed extension to the college is on part of the college grounds which is currently used for
temporary classrooms. I consider the principle of the extension to the college to be in accordance
with policies SC4 and ECH1.
Sport England
The development of this extension is on land already occupied by temporary classrooms, as such
no playing space would be lost by the building however car parking would be positioned on part of
the playing fields. The proposed car park and fencing are in the same position, fronting Dronfield
Road, as the temporary classrooms and fencing approved under permission 05/51511/FUL and
05/51512/FUL. These two approvals included conditions requiring replacement pitches to be set
out prior to the erection of the temporary classrooms and railings.
Sport England have offered advice with regard to this current application that improved
replacement pitches would be installed as part of the college and Buille Hill High School
developments. Sport England are satisfied that the proposed car parking area will not detrimentally
effect sports provision between the school and the college. As the land take of the car park is fairly
small in relation to the shared playing fields I consider a new all weather pitch or pitch with
improved drainage would be in accordance with policies R1, SC4 and ECH1. I recommend a
condition be added to require details of replacement sports pitches.
Car Parking and Traffic
At present there are 147 on site car parking spaces on the site. The proposed scheme includes 16
extra car parking spaces resulting in 163 car parking spaces on the site. The applicant has advised
there are 102 staff at present. The applicant also advises there would be 117 full time staff plus 100
support staff and 1800 students at the college once the new extension is opened. Maximum parking
standards in the UDP state a maximum parking level of one space per two staff. The proposed
parking level would be in excess of maximum parking standards. Given the increase in staff
numbers and objections to on street parking from local residents I consider an increase of 16
parking spaces to be appropriate at the college. The college has submitted a draft travel plan which
I recommend be controlled through a condition.
Objection has been received to the location of the new parking area on Dronfield Road. I consider
that screening to the car parking area on Dronfield Road could mitigate the visual appearance of
the parking area. I recommend a landscaping condition be attached to resolve this matter. Whilst
the site would exceed maximum parking standards I am satisfied the level of parking is appropriate
given comments from members of the public and that the travel plan will help to reduce travel by
private car in accordance with policies DEV1 and A2. I have no highway objections to the
application.
Design and Appearance
The proposed extension which steps down from four storeys to single and two storeys towards
Carlton Road which is in accordance with the Councils standard separation distances in relation to
privacy and sunlight. I consider the scale and mass of the extension to be appropriate given the size
38
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th January 2006
of the adjacent college buildings. I consider the modern flat roofed structure together with
proposed materials to be acceptable with regard to policies DP3, DEV1, DEV2 and DES1. I
recommend a condition be attached to ensure the quality of materials used is acceptable.
Design and Crime
The GM Police architectural liaison unit have provided detailed comments regarding the design of
the extension but have no firm objection to the scheme. In response the applicant proposes to apply
for secure by design accreditation. Subject to a condition requiring the college to obtain secure by
design accreditation I consider the proposal complies with policies DEV4 and DES11.
Noise and Ground Conditions
I have received objections to the impact of noise from the extended college. The submitted noise
report suggests that noise emitting from the college should not increase background noise levels at
nearby properties by more than 5dB(A). I recommend a condition to control this. The Director of
Environmental Services proposes a condition to limit delivery and servicing times along the access
road parallel to Carton Road to between 9:00 and 18:00 Monday to Friday only in order to protect
the amenity of residents on Carlton Road. The Director of Environmental Services proposes a
condition to require a report to be submitted to investigate ground conditions and a condition in
relation to lighting at the site. Subject to the imposition of such conditions I am satisfied the
proposal complies with policies EN20, EN13 and EN14.
Matters not covered above
The applicant has shown the contractors compound to the west of the parking area with access
from Dronfield Road. Residents have objected to the siting and access of the compound and have
stated they would prefer this to be to the south of the college with access form Chasley Road. The
contractors compound and access to it would not require separate planning permission. I have
asked the applicant if the compound could be located to the south of the college with access from
Chasley Road however the applicant advises this can not be accommodated.
Objections have been received to the current excessive speeding of students along Dronfield Road
and this would become worse if the college were to expand. Although abiding to the speed limit is
not a material planning consideration I have informed the applicant of residents views on this
matter.
Objections have been received to additional litter that would be dropped by additional students. I
recommend an informative to advise the college to remind students not to drop litter.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
Pre-application discussions took place with the applicant over the proposed college extension. As
a result of those discussions the buildings have been sited away from, Dronfield Road and an
acceptable distance away from Carlton Road. The design of the scheme has also been improved as
a result of pre-application discussions. This application will tie the college into a travel plan which
aims to increase travel to the college by public transport, walking and cycling.
39
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th January 2006
CONCLUSION
The extension will improve the educational facilities at the college in accordance with policies
SC4 and EHC1. Along with Sport England I am satisfied with the impact upon sports provision at
the site. The design of the extension is to a good standard and complements the scale and mass of
the existing college buildings. The siting of the building complies with the Council’s standard
separation distances. Whilst overall the number of parking spaces slightly exceeds the maximum
parking levels I consider the increase of 16 parking spaces and introduction of travel plan should
reduce commuting to the college by private car and minimise on street parking in the local area. I
have no highway objections and recommend the application be approved subject to the conditions
listed below.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to
and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development is started. Such scheme
shall include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface
treatment and shall be carried out within twelve months of the commencement of development
and thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any
trees or shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the
Local Planning Authority.
3. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the walls
and roofs of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority.
4. Within a period of one month of the occupation of the extension hereby approved, the college
shall undertake a travel survey and this data will form part of a Travel Plan. Within a period of
6 months from the first date of occupation of the extension hereby approved, a Travel Plan
shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. The Travel Plan
shall as a minimum include the broad areas of actions, objectives and timescales for review and
monitoring. Within a period of twelve months of the commencement of occupation, the college
shall undertake a monitoring survey. Within twelve months of occupation of the college, a
Travel Plan shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority, which
shall include a review of targets, measures and staff survey data. Annually from the
commencement of occupation of the building, a Travel Plan shall be submitted for the written
approval of the Local Planning Authority for a period of 5 years and then at a time agreed in
40
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th January 2006
writing by the Local Planning Authority.
5. Within 12months of the date of this permission details of the specification, including drainage,
timescales, fencing and implementation of the final location of the full sized senior sized pitch
shown on drawing number 2004-198/114 Rev B shall be submitted to and approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority. The pitch and fencing shall be laid out in accordance with the
approved scheme and timetable for implementation.
6. Unless otherwise agreed the vertical bar railing fence shown on drawing number
2004-198/114 Rev B shall be removed and the land reinstated, with the exception of the car
park hereby approved, to its former use on or before the expiration of 24 months from the date
the decision was issued, unless the final position of the relocated full sized senior pitch has
been secured, implemented and made available for use.
7. No development shall be commenced unless and until a secure by design scheme has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such scheme shall be
capable of being accredited by Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit under the
secure by design scheme.
8. The rating level of noise from the extension hereby approved shall be lower than the
background noise level by at least 5dB(A) when determined at the nearest noise sensitive
premises. The measurement and assessment shall be made in accordance with BS4142:1997,
BS8233: Department of Education Guidelines.
9. No deliveries shall be taken or despatched using the access road parallel to the residential
properties on Carlton Road except between 09:00 hours and 18:00 hours Monday to Friday.
There shall be no deliveries on Saturdays or Sundays or Public Holidays.
10. No development shall be commenced unless and until a site investigation report (the Report)
has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
investigation shall address the nature, degree and distribution of ground contamination and
ground gases on site and shall include an identification and assessment of the risk to receptors
as defined under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA, focusing primarily on risks
to human health and controlled waters. The investigation shall also address the implications of
ground conditions on the health and safety of site workers, on nearby occupied building
structures, on services and landscaping schemes and on wider environmental receptors
including ecological systems and property.
The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the LPA prior to the start of the
site investigation survey. Recommendations and remedial works contained within the
approved report shall be implemented by the developer prior to occupation of the site.
Prior to discharge of the Contaminated Land Condition, a Site Completion Report shall be
41
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th January 2006
submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The Site Completion Report shall
validate that all works undertaken on site were completed in accordance with those agreed by
the LPA.
11. No development shall be commenced unless and until a lighting scheme has been submitted to
and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be
implemented and thereafter retained prior to the first occupation of the development.
12. Before the development hereby permitted is brought into use not less than 163 car parking
spaces, of which at least 9 shall be marked out as disabled bays, shall be provided within the
curtilage of the site to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and such spaces shall be
made available at all times the premises are in use.
13. No development shall be commenced unless and until a scheme detailing bicycle and
motorbike parking has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented and thereafter retained prior to the first
occupation of the development.
14. No development shall be commenced unless and until a scheme detailing sustainable
construction techniques has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. Prior to the occupation of the extension the approved scheme shall be installed and
shall thereafter be retained and maintained.
Reasons:
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. To ensure sustainable modes of travel are used in accordance with policies DEV1 of the
Adopted UDP and A10 of the Revised Deposit Draft Salford City Council UDP.
5. To ensure that the final sports pitch is of a sufficient standard to justify a reduction in college
and allocated for recreational purposes in accordance with Policy R1 of the City of Salford
Adopted UDP and Policy R1 of the City of Salford Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan.
6. To ensure adequate sports pitch provision in accordance with Policy R1 of the City of Salford
Adopted UDP and Policy R1 of the City of Salford Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan
7. To ensure the design of the scheme discourages crime in accordance with Policy DEV4 of the
City of Salford Adopted UDP and Policy DES11 of the City of Salford Revised Deposit Draft
42
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th January 2006
Replacement Plan
8. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
9. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
10. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
11. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
12. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
13. To ensure the scheme provides facilities to encourage travel to the collge by means other than
by private car in accordance with Policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Adopted UDP and Policy
A10 of the City of Salford Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan.
14. In order to provide recycling facilities in accordance with policy DEV1 and EN20 of the City
of Salford Unitary Development Plan and EN17a of the Salford City Council Deposit Draft
UDP.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. Construction vehicle movements to and from and/or within the site should only take place on
the site between 08:00 and 18:00 Mondays to Fridays and 08:00 to 13:00 Saturdays and not at
all on Sundays or Public Holidays.
2. The applicant is advised that the requirements of all the conditions precedent must be satisfied
prior to the commencement of the development. Failure to satisfy the conditions precedent
renders all development unauthorised and unlawful and appropriate action may be taken by the
Council.
3. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Greater
Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit.
4. The college is advised to remind students not to drop litter.
APPLICATION No:
05/51735/FUL
43
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th January 2006
APPLICANT:
Manchester Junior Girls School
LOCATION:
64 Upper Park Road Salford M7 4JA
PROPOSAL:
Retention of pitched roof (Amendment to planning permission
04/47949/FUL)
WARD:
Kersal
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to 64 Upper Park Road, a property within the predominantly residential
area of Broughton Park. The building is currently used by Manchester Jewish Girls High School,
which provides primary level education.
In 2000, planning permission was granted for the erection of a two storey classroom/assembly hall,
extension to the existing school’s entrance canopy and canopy to the play area (ref:
00/40951/FUL). The approved plans showed that the extension would be 16.6m by 12.2m and
7.3m high to the eaves. The extension would have a pitched roof and would project 6.5m beyond
the western gable of the existing building. It would be sited 30m from the eastern elevation of 66A
Upper Park Road.
A number of conditions were attached to that permission, including condition 2 which required the
walls and roof of the development to be the same type, colour and texture as the existing building,
unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Director of Development Services. Condition 3 required
that, prior to the commencement of the development, full details of all the elevations had to be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services. This was due to
concerns regarding the windows shown on the plans originally submitted, which the Council
considered to be unduly large and bulky, out of keeping with the character of the area and
exacerbated any overlooking of adjoining properties.
The extension was not constructed in accordance with the approved plans as conditions 2 and 3
were not complied with. The extension had not been constructed using buff brick to match the
existing building and the additional elevational plans as required by condition 3 were not
submitted. The extension was constructed 1.5m from the rear of the original building with a flat
roof. It projects 11m beyond the western gable of the existing building. It was 16.7m by 12.1m and
7.1m high. It was 26.5m from the eastern elevation of 66A Upper Park Road.
An application was submitted in August 2003 (03/46701/FUL) to retain the existing two storey
classroom block and clad it using external facing brickwork in an attempt to address concerns
relating to the extension’s appearance which is not in keeping with either the existing building or
44
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th January 2006
the surrounding area. That application was refused in September 2003, the reason for refusal being
as follows:
‘The classroom block, by virtue of its inappropriate size, siting, design and appearance, has an
unacceptable detrimental impact on the existing building, the amenity of neighbouring residents
and the Broughton Park area. It is therefore contrary to policies DEV10, DEV1 and DEV2 of the
Adopted UDP and policies DES1, DES7 and DES8 of the First Deposit UDP.’
At the request of Members, and in order to rectify the situation, an enforcement notice was issued
on 4th February 2004 for the removal of the classroom block.
A further application was submitted in March 2004 (04/47949/FUL) to retain the two storey
classroom block together with the erection of facing brickwork and a pitched roof. It was
proposed to erect a pitched roof which would be hipped and would increase the height of the
existing building by an additional 3m, making the overall height to the ridge 10.1m. The
application was approved by Members on 15th April 2004.
An enforcement officer received a complaint in May 2005 and following a site visit found that the
brick cladding had not been done and the roof was still flat. A Breach of Condition Notice was
then served in respect of Condition 2 of planning permission 04/47949/FUL. Work did commence
on the brick skin a few months later and so the matter was adjourned whilst work progressed.
Another site visit in November 2005 saw the brick skin has been satisfactorily completed but the
pitched roof had not been constructed in accordance with plans and so the Council’s Legal
department proceeded with prosecution. There was a court appearance on 3rd November 2005,
however, following a request for postponement from the school, the matter was adjourned again to
allow them to submit a retrospective planning application to retain the roof as built.
This application is therefore only to retain the pitched roof. The plans of the previous application
showed the pitch of the roof being approximately 25o, however the roof has been constructed with
a pitch of 10o. The resulting ridge is now 8.5m high. The roof is finished in profiled grey cladding
as previously approved under 04/47949/FUL.
As was the case when the previous applications were considered, it is not the school’s intention to
increase pupil numbers but rather to improve facilities.
SITE HISTORY
Members will be aware of this site’s long history. In summary the most relevant applications are as
follows:
In April 2004, planning permission was granted for the retention of a two storey classroom block
together with the erection of facing brickwork and a pitched roof (ref: 04/47949/FUL).
45
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th January 2006
In September 2003, planning permission was refused for the retention of the existing two storey
classroom together with the erection of facing brickwork (ref: 03/46701/FUL).
In 2001, planning permission was approved for the erection of a single storey extension to form
nursery (ref: 01/42374/FUL).
In 2000, planning permission for the retention of temporary classroom accommodation was
refused (ref: 00/40967/FUL).
In 2000, planning permission was granted for the erection of two storey classroom/assembly hall,
extension to existing schools entrance canopy and canopy to play area (ref: 00/40951/FUL).
In 1999, planning permission was approved for the retention of temporary classroom
accommodation (ref: 99/39669/FUL).
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
31, 33 and 35 Upper Park Road
41 Upper Park Road
62 Upper Park Road
Flat 1 62 Upper Park Road
Flat 2 62 Upper Park Road
64A Upper Park Road
66A Upper Park Road
3 Oakwell Drive
5 Oakwell Drive
7 Oakwell Drive
179 to 183 (E) Bury Old Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have not received any representations in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: DEV10 – Broughton Park Development Control Policy
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
46
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th January 2006
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
INSPECTOR’S REPORT
Draft Policy DES1 - Minor modifications general thrust remains the same.
Draft Policy DES7 - No changes to this policy.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the roof has an unacceptable
detrimental impact on the amenity of the neighbouring residents; whether it has an unacceptable
detrimental impact on the street scene and does it comply with the provisions of relevant policies
of the Adopted and Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan Unitary Development Plan.
Policy DEV10 aims to retain the primarily residential character of the Broughton Park area. The
reasoned justification does however recognise that uses allied to the residential area, including
schools, may be considered appropriate in certain circumstances. It states that such uses should not
be permitted where there would be an adverse effect on existing residential properties. It
emphasises that Broughton Park’s design characteristics give the area a sense of identity and that
new development should respect the proportions, modelling and detailing of existing buildings.
Policy DEV1 outlines a number of criteria to which regard will be had in the determination of
planning applications. Of most relevance to this application are the location of the proposed
development, including its relationship to existing and proposed land uses, the size and density of
the proposed development, the layout and relationship of existing and proposed buildings and the
visual appearance of the development and its relationship to its surroundings.
Policy DEV2 states that the Council will not normally grant permission for development unless it
is satisfied with the quality of design and the appearance of the development. All development
should pay due regard to existing buildings, the townscape and the character of the surrounding
area.
Policy DES1 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP requires development to respond to
its physical context, respect the positive character of the local area and contribute towards local
identity and distinctiveness. In assessing the extent to which an application complies with this
policy, regard will be had to a number of factors, including the relationship to existing buildings
and the scale of the proposed development in relationship to its surroundings.
47
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th January 2006
Policy DES7 states that development will not be permitted where it would have an unacceptable
impact on the amenity of the users or occupiers of other developments.
The flat roof was entirely out of keeping with the character and appearance of the original school
building and the surrounding area generally. The pitched roof as detailed in application
04/47949/FUL was considered acceptable, as it would greatly improve the appearance of the
building, making it less visually obtrusive and detrimental to the amenity of the area. It was to be
constructed using grey profiled metal sheet due to its lightweight nature. The building originally
approved in 2000 had a pitched roof and would have been 10.5m to the ridge, 0.4m higher than
what was proposed by the 2004 application. The roof that is subject of this application that has
been constructed with a reduced pitch has a height to the ridge of approximately 8.5m and is of he
material approved previously. I am of the opinion it does not have an unacceptable impact on the
street scene due to the extension being set back from the road. The presence of a two storey
detached dwelling that has been constructed to the west of the application site (64A Upper Park
Road) partially obscures views of the classroom block from Upper Park Road. As a result, the
classroom block does not appear as dominant or obtrusive in the street scene as was the case when
previous applications were refused.
CONCLUSION
I consider that the roof that has been built does not cause any significant harm to any amenity of
neighbouring residents or the street scene. I am of the opinion that the proposal complies with the
relevant policies of both the Adopted and Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDPs and I
therefore recommend that the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve - unconditional
APPLICATION No:
05/51652/ART10
APPLICANT:
Cerestar Ltd
LOCATION:
Cerestar Guinness Road Trafford Park Manchester (Article 10)
PROPOSAL:
Article 10 Consultation received from Trafford MBC in respect
of alterations and expansion of existing plant comprising erection
of combined heat and power plant, wheat plant and building,
bulk outloading building and pellet store, carbon furnace
48
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th January 2006
building and control facility. Extension to existing cooling towers.
THE PROPOSAL
Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council have received an application that relates to the Cerestar
site in Trafford Park on the other side of the Manchester Ship Canal. The Cerestar site is located to
the South of Weaste Quarry on Centenary Way. As the Cerestar site lies within close proximity of
the City of Salford, Trafford Borough Council have consulted us in order to see whether we have
any comments on any aspect of the proposal.
The application proposes the rationalisation of the existing industrial plant to convert from a maize
production to a wheat production, and the expansion of the plant to include an alcohol production
unit for use as a biofuel or consumption.
The application includes the following elements, which are described below.
A wheat plant building including a flourmill, wet separation building and dryer building which
would be established within a new building. The proposed building would measure 32m at its
highest point dropping to 14m at its lowest and it would have 5 floors. The building measures 70m
in width and 53m in length and will be constructed in a mix of Goosewing grey plastisol coated
metal cladding with red class A engineering brickwork at the base. Steel shutter doors on the
south, west and east elevations provide access to the building whilst external metal staircases
provide access to each floor for maintenance staff.
An extension would be added to the east of the existing bulk store. The existing building measures
28m in width, 30.4m in length and the proposed extension would be 15.5m in height and links to
the roof of the existing building. Materials will match those of the existing building.
A pellet store building which measures 56.6m in width, 24.5m in length and 11.6m in height will
also be introduced onto the site. The proposed building will link to the north elevation of the
existing and extended bulk store and will be clad in plasticol coated sheeting in goosewing grey.
Roller shutter doors will provide vehicular access to the west and east elevations.
An ethanol plant comprising a mix of plant, machinery and buildings including distillation,
evaporation, fermentation equipment, cooling towers, storage and control buildings is also
proposed. New roads constructed within the site will provide vehicular access around the ethanol
plant. The distillation plant will be the tallest part, comprising 8 separate metal tubes, each at
different height, the tallest measuring 43m. Each tube has an external pedestrian walkway/stairs
for maintenance.
An extension to the eastern elevation of the existing cooling towers will also be erected. The
proposed extension measures 11.8m in width. The proposed length (15.2m) and height (10.8m)
49
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th January 2006
match the existing cooling tower measurements. The towers will be clad in goosewing grey
plastisol metal sheeting with greenheart timber louvres base to match the existing cooling towers.
In total, the new cooling towers will measures 35.6m in width.
A new combined heat and power plant is proposed to the north of the existing office building. This
comprises a mix of plant and machinery partially enclosed in a large industrial shed measuring
50m in length, 24.5m in width and 10.2m in height on steel supports. At its northern end, two
separate chimneys are proposed each measuring 49m in height and 1.4m in width. The roof of the
proposed industrial building will be clad in goosewing grey plastisol coated metal sheeting with
green trim whilst a palisade fence runs around the perimeter of the building.
A large industrial building measuring 13.8m in width, 213.2m in length and 25.5m in height is
proposed to accommodate a Carbon furnace. The new building will be clad in Goosewing grey
plastisol coated metal cladding with green trim.
A Control facility is also proposed. The facility would be accommodated within a small single
storey building that would be located at the far north west end of the site adjacent to the Nash Road
entrance. The building would measure 6.5m in width, 6.5m in length and 3.4m in height. The
walls would be constructed in red brick, and the roof in asphalt reinforced concrete.
Several new areas of hardstanding, roads and other associated infrastructure are also proposed as
part of the development. Raw material (wheat) will be transported to the site by HGV, and the
vehicular access on Nash Road will re-open to accommodate additional traffic associated with
these changes.
POLICY BACKGROUND
National Policy – PPS23 Planning and Pollution Control
This document states that when determing planning applications Local Planning Authorities
should assess whether the development itself is an acceptable use of the land taking into
consideration the impacts that the proposed use would have on neighbouring land users as a result
of noise and air pollution that it would generate. In assessing the impact that a proposed
development would have regard also needs to be had to the effects of existing sources of pollution
in and around the site and the cumulative effects when the proposed development is added.
Regional Policy – EQ2 Air Quality
This policy states that Local Authorities should be working together to tackle poor air quality and
reduce emissions in order to contribute towards the improvement of air quaility in the North West.
PLANNING APPRAISAL – THE IMPACT ON SALFORD
50
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th January 2006
The key issues to consider in relation to the impact of the proposal on Salford are visual amenity
and the impact the proposed development would have on air quality and noise levels in the vicinity
of the site.
Visual Impact –
When viewed from Eccles Town Centre, the West One Retail Park, Weaste Quarry the Cerestar
site is highly visible with a mixture of industrial type sheds, plant buildings and their associated
cooling towers and stacks being clearly visible within the landscape and on the skyline. The
proposal would add to the general mix of buildings on site, however, as it can be seen from the two
visuals provided which show the site when viewed from Weaste Quarry and the other from the
residential estate to the north of Akros Chemicals (to be shown at Panel) the proposed
development would not result in the introduction of any buildings or structures that would be
visually dominant or alter the character of the area. The proposed buildings and plant aparatus
would blend well with those already present on site. Consequently, the proposal would not have an
adverse impact upon the visual amenity of the area and therefore residents/land users in the
vicinity of the site would not experience a reduction in the amenity they currently enjoy. I do not
therefore have any objections to the proposal on visual amenity grounds.
Impact on Air Quality The Director of Environmental Services has the following overall comments to make. His officers
have been heavily involved in the amendment of this proposal including liason with Trafford’s
environmental health officers and the applicant. Further detailled information maybe presented at
Panel.
Introduction
This report is based on information received from Cerestar between 15 December 2005 and 10
January 2006. A precautionary approach has been adopted.
Air Quality Standards
Health based Air Quality Standards and Objectives are set in the Air Quality Regulations 2000 and
(Amendment) Regulations 2000. Studies by Salford City Council confirmed that nitrogen dioxide
(NO2) and particulates less than 10 microns (PM10) are exceeded and an air quality management
area (AQMA) for the annual nitrogen dioxide has been declared.
While the Environment Agency is responsible for regulating the process, this planning application
is to assess the impacts of the development and how the emissions will affect the Council’s
statutory duty to meet the Air Quality Objectives and protect human health.
51
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th January 2006
The development will result in an increase of the floor space by 11000m2 for manufacturing and
alcohol production, 2 additional combined power and heat power (CHP) plants (making a total of
4), and will at least double the emissions of oxides of nitrogen from 42 tonnes per annum to 95
tonnes. Cerestar have indicated that the plant will use the most economic fuel option either gas or
diesel, but will limit the operation of diesel to no more than 3 plants at a time. Cerestar have
recently started to use more diesels due to the high price of gas. Diesel emits more particulates and
oxides of nitrogen than gas.
The pollutants giving concern from the combined heat and power plants (CHP) are nitrogen
dioxide (from oxides of nitrogen), particulates, and sulphur dioxide. The report shows that other
pollutants will meet the air quality objectives.
Nitrogen Dioxide
Modelling was used to assess the likely impact of the emissions on locations within the Eccles
area. It shows that the concentration for the annual average nitrogen dioxide will increase at West
One Retail Park by 1.8 µg/m3 on gas and 5.7 µg/m3 using diesel on three plants for 12 months. A
map (to be displayed at panel) shows the effect of emissions on the Eccles area.
This represents 4 % and 14% of the current air quality objective for annual mean nitrogen dioxide.
There will also be specific points at the roadside, which will move from being just below the air
quality standard to above the standard. In the worst case it would suggest that the air quality
objective might be exceeded at background locations if the facility is operated on diesel for 12
months, as levels will increase from 35 to 40 µg/m2. A map of effect of firing on diesel was not
provided and therefore the extent of the pollution could not be assessed.
Impact of the Development on attaining Nitrogen Dioxide Air Quality Objectives.
The concentration levels at Eccles have been falling about 1 µg/m3 per year and therefore it is
estimated that this development will result in setting the air quality gains back by 2 years using gas
and by up to six years for diesel. .
This is a significant setback and therefore the amount of time using diesel will need to be
conditioned.
Particulates less than 10 microns (PM10).
The proposed development was modelled using gas only and shows a reduction of 7 µg/m3.
However action by the Environment Agency would have secured a reduction in emissions to meet
their permit conditions in any case.
Transport Emissions
52
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th January 2006
There will be additional vehicle traffic of 80 heavy goods vehicles (HGV’s) over a 16-hour period
equivalent to 5 vehicles per hour. These will enter and leave the site using the A576 New Century
Bridge – Gilda Brook Road - West One to the M602. Traffic emissions will therefore affect
residential housing along the route.
The emissions from transport are less significant compared to emissions from the CHP and the
large traffic volumes on the road. Nevertheless there will be a cumulative effect at roadside
locations at these locations, which have not been fully identified by Cerestar.
Mitigation
Planning Policy Statement 23 acknowledges that it is appropriate in some circumstances for the
developer to fund mitigation measures elsewhere inside the AQMA to offset any increase in local
pollutant emissions as a consequence of the proposed development. These measures can be
secured through Section 106 Agreements.
The development will delay compliance with the air quality objectives. While Cerestar have
provided brief details on reducing their own transport emissions it has not considered how to offset
the increase in emissions from the site’s power plants. Measures to improve the local transport
infrastructure and travel plans across Eccles and Trafford Park will be effective at reducing
roadside pollution where the levels are highest. Both councils have Travel Co-ordinators and
Local Transport Plan Officers who can advise and guide them on how the to develop meaningful
mitigation measures for Salford and Trafford.
Discussion and Recommendations.
The increase in emissions predicted will require Salford to continue to resource and fund the air
quality monitoring station at Eccles town Centre. Additional work will also be incurred in the
additional years to achieve the air quality objectives and the additional work required for the local
review and assessment of air quality.
The modelling undertaken by Cerestar indicates a significant increase of emissions during the
diesel firing and will have an unacceptable impact on the local environment.
The facility must have an option to switch to diesel in the event that the gas supply is interrupted,
which is increasingly likely in the short term. Furthermore the plant will need to be fired on diesel
for testing and during servicing.
Therefore it is not practicable to give planning permission for gas usage only and a certain
proportion of time must be permitted for diesel usage. While there is insufficient data in the report
to accurately set a usage level for diesel, to enable the development to proceed it is recommended
that:
53
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th January 2006
A) The total number of months that one or any permutation of the four gas turbine and waste heat
boilers can be operated on diesel in a running 12 month period is six months. (Examples to be
provided)
This condition may be reassessed if modelling is undertaken by Cerestar, demonstrating that the
impact on the local area is provided.
With regard to mitigation the following is recommended:
B) Cerestar to develop a mitigation package for the local area (including Eccles) which will also
include a Green travel plan for employees and transport companies moving raw materials and
finished product.
Other conditions recommended are:
C) Emission monitoring results from the four plant are submitted in writing to SCC.
D) Annual emission and associated calculations detailing fuel usage and split is submitted
annually in writing to SCC.
E) Cerestar to advise Salford City Council, in writing, when any plant is switched to or from diesel.
F) Commissioning report to identify emission characteristics during start-up / shutdown and
normal operating during diesel and gas phases on all four main gas turbines.
Recommendations C and D will be used to fulfil SCC duties under The Environment Act 1995 and
local air quality management to maintain the Greater Manchester Emission Inventory for the
purposes of reviewing and assessing local air quality. Recommendation E is monitor effects on the
local air quality. Recommendation F to determine if the CHP confirms to the advise given by the
manufactures and provide more accurate information for monitoring.
Impact on noise pollution –
Discussions have taken place with Trafford it has been resolved that subject to the imposition of
the following condition I am satisfied that the proposed development would not have an adverse
impact upon Salfords residents in terms of noise pollution.
“
Prior to the commencement of the development, a noise assessment for the proposed
development and details of any noise mitigation measures required shall be submitted to and
approved in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The assessment shall address the noise
impacts of the proposed changes to plant and equipment on site and shall assess the impact on
neighbouring commercial and industrial uses both in Trafford Park and Eccles. The impact on
residential uses in the Eccles area shall also be considered including further assessment of
54
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th January 2006
Planning Authority.
”
possible tonal noise from the development. All approved noise mitigation measures shall be
installed before the proposed development is brought into use and thereafter maintained in
accordance with the approved scheme unless otherwise confirmed in writing with the Local
CONCLUSION
It is reccommended that subject to the conditions identified above that the impact on Salford can
be limited. On this basis I would recommend that Trafford MBC be advised that no objection be
lodged providing the conditions are imposed should they be minded to grant planning permission.
RECOMMENDATION
That no objection be lodged subject to Trafford MBC imposing the conditions/agreements
contained in this report that are required to satisfactorarily address concerns regarding air quality
and noise.
55